Why Do Banks Have To Make Money?

Recommended Posts

In all of the discussions I've seen I can't remember this fundamental question being answered.

Given that finance and economics are required for civilisation surely banking should create as little overhead as possible. Isn't the practice of banks making profits similar to engine oil adding friction to a car engine?

For every pound made in profit, that's a pound engineered into the system unneccessarily. I think banking should be nat zero, not for profit. Anyone else agree? I'd also like to hear a compelling argument in favour of maximising banking profits too, especially one that shows that it is good for the population as a whole (as opposed to minority VI bankers).

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest sillybear2

Guest sillybear2

Because they're parasites that feed off the real productive output of the rest of the economy through usury and by debasing the medium of exchange, this was accepted in previous decades because of their function in allocating capital and the net gains of lending to industry outweighed their dead weight loss, however the tail is wagging the dog now, the economy is finance lead. It's like watching a real, productive local economy being over taken by a giant state backed ponzi scheme that consumes and distorts everything in its wake.

Banks have used their unique position to push their reckless business practices, because they know the government will always come along and socialise their losses, and they bet right, there is now a crippling public debt and huge public liabilities because of their selfish f**kwittedness. We know all this of course, but nothing will change, it's a "heads I win, tails you lose" system so nothing will be learned, the same problems will keep occurring, over and over again and we'll just keep stealing from our children and debasing the currency, over and over again, until eventually it all falls in on itself, like Rome.

All businesses like to make as much money as possible, car companies do this by trying to sell as many cars as possible, the extra congestion and pollution are externalities they don't have to pay for. Drinks and tobacco companies like to sell as much as their product as they can, but the govt woke up and realised they were doing this at great harm to the public good and taxed them. Banks like to make as much money as possible too of course, it's their fiduciary duty to their shareholders, they do this by bloodsucking the productive economy dry and diminishing peoples' standard of living, making the necessities of life unduly expensive and making everyone work longer and harder purely for the banks gain.

One day a government will wake up to the fact bankers and the 'finance industry' are simply parasites and need to be dealt with, however this is doubtful, the banks basically own the government through the issue of money and gilts, and many people in government are parasites too, living off tax payers largess, or buying votes with taxpayers largess, so they don't really see the problem with the concept of legaised theft, nor would they be attracted by the prospect of having to work for a living.

Other countries have a long history of organised crime and racketeers, the mafia, yakuza, triads etc, people think the UK is different, and in many ways we are, we're more genteel, we made our version into a outwardly respectable profession called banking and the state lent a hand with its monopoly on violence, so they can steal your money, steal your pension, kick people out of their homes etc with the full force of the law behind them, something the mafia could only dream of.

Edited June 23, 2009 by sillybear2

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

In all of the discussions I've seen I can't remember this fundamental question being answered.

Given that finance and economics are required for civilisation surely banking should create as little overhead as possible. Isn't the practice of banks making profits similar to engine oil adding friction to a car engine?

For every pound made in profit, that's a pound engineered into the system unneccessarily. I think banking should be nat zero, not for profit. Anyone else agree? I'd also like to hear a compelling argument in favour of maximising banking profits too, especially one that shows that it is good for the population as a whole (as opposed to minority VI bankers).

///C

I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Labour had won in the early 80s and nationalised the banks. Regardless I think that govt should issue a permanent form of currency backed by a hard asset ( probably gold ), there is no need for us to pay the ridiculous interest cost that fiat money inflicts. To be honest I think lending at interest should probably be banned, capital could be raised on something like the Islamic model, which seems both more sensible and more equitable.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

In all of the discussions I've seen I can't remember this fundamental question being answered.

Given that finance and economics are required for civilisation surely banking should create as little overhead as possible. Isn't the practice of banks making profits similar to engine oil adding friction to a car engine?

For every pound made in profit, that's a pound engineered into the system unneccessarily. I think banking should be nat zero, not for profit. Anyone else agree? I'd also like to hear a compelling argument in favour of maximising banking profits too, especially one that shows that it is good for the population as a whole (as opposed to minority VI bankers).

///C

That's commie talk my friend. Come the inquisition, you get to be top of the list.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

For every pound made in profit, that's a pound engineered into the system unneccessarily. I think banking should be nat zero, not for profit. Anyone else agree? I'd also like to hear a compelling argument in favour of maximising banking profits too, especially one that shows that it is good for the population as a whole (as opposed to minority VI bankers).

///C

shareholders need their money

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I have never been a fan of any nationalised industry apart from the creation of money and credit. The shareholders should be every resident of the country. There has never been a relevant argument, IMHO, for this sector of the economy to be anything more.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest sillybear2

Guest sillybear2

I have never been a fan of any nationalised industry apart from the creation of money and credit. The shareholders should be every resident of the country. There has never been a relevant argument, IMHO, for this sector of the economy to be anything more.

I agree, and namely because finance is one of the few areas that doesn't benefit from innovation, aside from the basic automation of processes and efficiencies there is no real innovation to add to usury, as Galbraith said in 'A Short History of Financial Euphoria' there's only ever increased leverage and increased risk taking no matter how they try and label it or pretend otherwise.

Edited June 23, 2009 by sillybear2

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I have never been a fan of any nationalised industry apart from the creation of money and credit. The shareholders should be every resident of the country. There has never been a relevant argument, IMHO, for this sector of the economy to be anything more.

Two points, the bulk of shareholders are the resident of this country who work in the private sector, they are called pension holders. Pension funds require businesses to grow so that they also grow in value and can pay for your retirement

Second profit is not a thing that just gets squandered on stuff, it serves two purposes a. to contibute to a fund to cover bad years (when a company makes a loss where do you think the cash comes from? either cash in the bank or debt) b. it allows companies to invest in new areas such as new regions or new products that have a start up cost before they make money. (also what paid for chip and pin, online banking, fraud protection etc. etc.)

If we stuck to the usual socialist mantra that profit is bad we would be stuck in the dark ages, socialist policies have failed in every single implimentation it just doesn't work

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest sillybear2

Guest sillybear2

If we stuck to the usual socialist mantra that profit is bad we would be stuck in the dark ages, socialist policies have failed in every single implimentation it just doesn't work

To be fair though the banks themselves are hardly the shining beacon of capitalist enterprise or risk taking as half of them should rightfully be out of the business right now, they only exist because they've cried to nanny and the state has socialised their losses by stealing off every tax payer in the country and the next generation through a crippling public debt. Which kind of proves that socialism does work... if you're a rich banker.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Because they're parasites that feed off the real productive output of the rest of the economy through usury and by debasing the medium of exchange, this was accepted in previous decades because of their function in allocating capital and the net gains of lending to industry outweighed their dead weight loss, however the tail is wagging the dog now, the economy is finance lead. It's like watching a real, productive local economy being over taken by a giant state backed ponzi scheme that consumes and distorts everything in its wake.

Banks have used their unique position to push their reckless business practices, because they know the government will always come along and socialise their losses, and they bet right, there is now a crippling public debt and huge public liabilities because of their selfish f**kwittedness. We know all this of course, but nothing will change, it's a "heads I win, tails you lose" system so nothing will be learned, the same problems will keep occurring, over and over again and we'll just keep stealing from our children and debasing the currency, over and over again, until eventually it all falls in on itself, like Rome.

All businesses like to make as much money as possible, car companies do this by trying to sell as many cars as possible, the extra congestion and pollution are externalities they don't have to pay for. Drinks and tobacco companies like to sell as much as their product as they can, but the govt woke up and realised they were doing this at great harm to the public good and taxed them. Banks like to make as much money as possible too of course, it's their fiduciary duty to their shareholders, they do this by bloodsucking the productive economy dry and diminishing peoples' standard of living, making the necessities of life unduly expensive and making everyone work longer and harder purely for the banks gain.

One day a government will wake up to the fact bankers and the 'finance industry' are simply parasites and need to be dealt with, however this is doubtful, the banks basically own the government through the issue of money and gilts, and many people in government are parasites too, living off tax payers largess, or buying votes with taxpayers largess, so they don't really see the problem with the concept of legaised theft, nor would they be attracted by the prospect of having to work for a living.

Other countries have a long history of organised crime and racketeers, the mafia, yakuza, triads etc, people think the UK is different, and in many ways we are, we're more genteel, we made our version into a outwardly respectable profession called banking and the state lent a hand with its monopoly on violence, so they can steal your money, steal your pension, kick people out of their homes etc with the full force of the law behind them, something the mafia could only dream of.

Very good post

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

To be fair though the banks themselves are hardly the shining beacon of capitalist enterprise or risk taking as half of them should rightfully be out of the business right now, they only exist because they've cried to nanny and the state has socialised their losses by stealing off every tax payer in the country and the next generation through a crippling public debt. Which kind of proves that socialism does work... if you're a rich banker.

The banks originally have exploited the regulatory advantages given them together with their monopolist positions to enable them to make huge profits and take huge bonuses. Then when the crash arrived they were bailed out by the government. They have privatised gains and made the losses public. A total disgrace nothing particulaly entrepreneurial either.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

To be fair though the banks themselves are hardly the shining beacon of capitalist enterprise or risk taking as half of them should rightfully be out of the business right now, they only exist because they've cried to nanny and the state has socialised their losses by stealing off every tax payer in the country and the next generation through a crippling public debt. Which kind of proves that socialism does work... if you're a rich banker.

Here's a message to all banks - MARK TO MARKET, then it should become evident whether you should be paying bonuses, film star pay packages or hirering new faces. Perhaps it would reveal whether you still qualify to be in business atall. While you bankers bathe in your pretence you have put innocent people out of work and caused some people to take their own lives. When will there be justice?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Labour had won in the early 80s and nationalised the banks. Regardless I think that govt should issue a permanent form of currency backed by a hard asset ( probably gold ), there is no need for us to pay the ridiculous interest cost that fiat money inflicts. To be honest I think lending at interest should probably be banned, capital could be raised on something like the Islamic model, which seems both more sensible and more equitable.

Don't worry if this vid on nationalists site is correct in its figures islam is coming to a world near you very soon

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest sillybear2

Guest sillybear2

The banks originally have exploited the regulatory advantages given them together with their monopolist positions to enable them to make huge profits and take huge bonuses. Then when the crash arrived they were bailed out by the government. They have privatised gains and made the losses public. A total disgrace nothing particulaly entrepreneurial either.

See it from their point of view, they are basically a band of thieves, not content with their existing slow process of regular and systemic theft through usury with a veneer of respectability, they got greedy and took their 'entrepreneurial' spirit and shamelessness up a notch, they found a more effective way of stealing, if the bet paid off then it's all good, otherwise their failure simply became the biggest advance auction on stolen goods in human history. The state has a monopoly on violence, they can legally beat and confiscate money out of anyone, or print money and steal via inflation, so if you buy or blackmail vain or desperate politicians you can just steal from the state who in turn will do the further stealing for you, it even opens up a new avenue, being able to steal from the unborn.

Anyway, the bonuses were paid once the deals were done, provided the wheels didn't come off before the year was up the bankers were fine, that was their only 'event horizon'. Was it in the banks or shareholders interests to employ and reward such crooks? Obviously not, but did they really care knowing they can just go crying off to the nanny state when it all inevitably went wrong? Obviously not.

The problem with looting is the fact its practitioners then find anything but further stealing unrewarding and too much effort.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Two points, the bulk of shareholders are the resident of this country who work in the private sector, they are called pension holders. Pension funds require businesses to grow so that they also grow in value and can pay for your retirement

Second profit is not a thing that just gets squandered on stuff, it serves two purposes a. to contibute to a fund to cover bad years (when a company makes a loss where do you think the cash comes from? either cash in the bank or debt) b. it allows companies to invest in new areas such as new regions or new products that have a start up cost before they make money. (also what paid for chip and pin, online banking, fraud protection etc. etc.)

If we stuck to the usual socialist mantra that profit is bad we would be stuck in the dark ages, socialist policies have failed in every single implimentation it just doesn't work

Where did I say that any national banking system couldn't make a profit? Or that a national banking system couldn't serve the purposes that you outlined? Your point that profit "doesn't just get squandered on stuff" doesn't cover staff bonus's etc>? Guess that's not stuff in your world. As for being a "socialist" I am certainly not as I pointed out in my post. My point is that money and credit is too important to be in private hands. I think I am suported in that view by a lot of people (Buffet for one). Freidman, Galbraith. Pretty good crowd. You can still have a private banking system-what used to be called "merchant banks"-they would just be 100% reserved up.